Garlands Residential Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans lacked person-centred information, but staff knew people’s needs and preferences well. Some people’s care records lacked detail about the care and support that had been provided. The provider assured us this was a recording issue and they would arrange training for staff around record keeping.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked closely with a range of other health and social care professionals. This included GPs, opticians, chiropodists, and dementia specialists.A number of tools and assessments were completed with people to assess what level of support was required to meet their needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The home supported a person who could not communicate verbally. The staff ensured they were aware of their preferred way of communicating and supported them with this method of communication.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.Regular residents meetings were held where people could give their views on the service and the care they received.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Health and social care professionals visited the service when people required. Staff understood how to access emergency, routine and specialist support when it was required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People and staff had access to various ways of raising concerns about treatment which discriminates. Staff training, guidance and supervisions meant staff were consistently reminded of their responsibilities. The service had created a culture of openness and fairness for all, this was backed up by the provider’s mission. We received mixed comments about the managers presence around the service. Some of the comments were, “The manager is approachable and responds well when you raise things,” and “You don’t see the manager much.” There were a number of equality and diversity policies in place for staff to follow if they faced any inequalities.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The provider had an end-of-life policy in place and the registered manager knew support services they would be able to access if anyone was on end-of-life care.